Jacqueline Elaine Wihongi, 33, “self-medicated” with alcohol after a tragic “history of victimhood”, a court was told yesterday. She is believed to be just the second person to receive less than a life sentence for murder.

Wihongi was found guilty in June of murdering her partner of 17 years, Vivian Hirini. But in the High Court at Napier yesterday, Justice John Wild said it would be manifestly unjust to sentence the mother-of-six to life imprisonment.

Women’s Refuge has hailed the decision as “brave and right”, and the justice minister says there are no plans to review the law that allowed the sentence……

Police were often called to attend to their altercations, which were often physical. Mr Hirini had been stabbed by her previously and had lost an eye when she hit him with a bottle….

Crown lawyer Steve Manning said this was not a case of “battered woman syndrome” and Wihongi had directed significant violence toward Mr Hirini in the years leading up to the murder….

I know men in NZ who’s upbringing was even more brutal than that described by Wihongi’s lawyer, who committed LESSER crimes than murder AND got longer sentences than her.
The ‘judge’ gave her the standard pussy pass I see.

Incidentally in femiNZt Hawkes Bay Wihongi was unlike men there spoilt for choice with government funded agencies she could have gone to for assistance with her ‘self medicating’.

If Women’s Refuge had anything to do with this family prior to the murder then that event stands as an indictment of their service.

If – as is more likely – they have become involved since that event they have clearly “chosen sides” on the basis of only the killer’s version.

At the very least they stand exposed before us as excusers of abuse extending to murder and possibly even as enablers of such.

I’ve frequently seen the ad hominem “rape apologist” thrown at those who are sceptical about anything to do do with rape. I find myself wondering what would constitute a well deserved, analogous portrayal for Ms Hannifin and Women’s Refuge and this callous performance. I’ll leave that to more competent wordsmiths.

Meanwhile I’ve perused the odd document on the Women’s Refuge website. Much like the material from many other similar organisations I’m afraid. Almost like it’s franchised. They don’t seem to have any view of men that doesn’t automatically equate to monster.

Their “Code of Ethics” was what perplexed me. I have lengthy involvement with a rape crisis and counselling service that serves a huge region. Women’s Refuge’s “code” contains a great deal of language about commitment and respect and tolerance toward those who are amongst the de jeur darlings of the politically correct. BUT nowhere does it mention victims of abuse. NOT ONCE. There’s an early, fleeting reference to “a policy of creating a violence-free environment and community” but other than that it really stands as a statement of political solidarity. Silly me. I was expecting an organisation serving a similar demographic to my own ie all victims of abuse. Seems they have a different agenda entirely.

A woman’s eight-year jail term for murdering her partner reflects the judiciary’s lack of understanding towards male victims of domestic violence, a men’s rights spokesman says.

Hastings GP Viv Roberts was commenting on Monday’s sentencing of Jacqueline Wihongi, 33, in the High Court at Napier.

The mother of six stabbed her partner of 17 years, Vivian Hirini, in the chest with a kitchen knife in June last year.

In sentencing, Justice John Wild said Wihongi had a tragic “history of victimhood” and it would have been “manifestly unjust” to have given her life imprisonment.

The couple had a violent relationship and frequently assaulted each other. Mr Hirini had been stabbed previously by Wihongi and had lost an eye when she hit him with a bottle. The court was shown a ringbinder containing about 500 pages of police reports on domestic callouts involving the couple.

But Dr Roberts said this was “clearly a case where there has been a lot of violence both ways”, which the system had failed to address.

“Men are frequently the victims in domestic violence and, even when they end up dead, the perpetrator of the violence is treated differently if they happen to be female.

“Mr Hirini is not available to tell his side of the story but, if he were, the story he would tell may well paint a different picture to that painted by Ms Wihongi’s defence team.”

A 2006 report by the Dunedin Multi-Disciplinary Health and Development Study (The Dunedin Study) said there was “a tendency to discount the harm attributed to violence carried out by women … but the argument of the relative benignity of female violence does not match our data on distress, nor our informal data on severity”.

Dr Roberts said police figures on reported incidents were not an accurate picture of the perpetrators as studies had shown men victims reported less than 5 per cent of violence and women about 30 per cent.

A quote from American author Patricia Pearson’s book When She Was Bad: How and Why Women Get Away with Murder best summed up his thoughts. “She wrote, `the denial of women’s aggression profoundly undermines our attempt as a culture to understand violence, to trace its causes and quell them’.

“I believe that is the number one reason that a couple like this can have 500 pages of incidents with the police and the violence continues to escalate to the point where someone ends up dead.

“The responsibility for this lack of understanding lies primarily with the judiciary and the law makers, and to me this sentence reflects that lack of understanding,” Dr Roberts said.

“I believe that is the number one reason that a couple like this can have 500 pages of incidents with the police and the violence continues to escalate to the point where someone ends up dead.

“The responsibility for this lack of understanding lies primarily with the judiciary and the law makers, and to me this sentence reflects that lack of understanding,” Dr Roberts said.”

The problem is, the lawmakers are increasingly female. In all the time women have had political power, not once has any law been passed to restrict whatever freedom women believe they have a right to – and I doubt you could find a single lawmaker who would publicly support equal penalties for men and women in practice.

Unlike men, women tend to see themselves as their gender first, and whatever other identity they assume (including impartial compassionate human being) comes second. This couldn’t have been more obviously on show than in the U.K. recently, where a government proposal to allow anonymity for rape suspects prior to being charged was so opposed by women M.P.s that they deserted their posts, flung party loyalties to the wind and defeated the proposal as sisters, Conservative and Labour alike. It is hard to imagine a clearer flaw in the parliamentary system than this – a network of individuals prioritising their own private sympathies over the interests of those they were elected to represent.

If women will corrupt the parliamentary process over such a relatively minor issue as this, we can be fairly certain that they will resist any measure that denies them the Pussy Pass.

At least the Aussies have still got enough spine left to jail some serious female offenders. Today they put away a woman for 27 years after the murder of her two sons. Note the standard appeal for a Pussy Pass: Fitchett claimed she was not guilty by reason of mental impairment…

MELBOURNE – An Australian mother twice convicted of killing her two young sons was sentenced to 27 years in prison today for what the judge called “the greatest act of betrayal.”

Donna Fitchett was first convicted in 2008 of murdering her sons in 2005 and sentenced to 24 years prison. She appealed her conviction and was granted a retrial in May, but a jury again found her guilty after she admitted drugging her sons and then strangling one and smothering the other.

The boys were 11 and 9 years old.

“You were their mother. Your responsibility was to nurture, care for, love and protect them and over the years you did that,” Justice Elizabeth Curtain said in sentencing Fitchett. “But in the greatest act of betrayal and in a profound breach of (trust) you robbed each of them of their precious lives … in an act of unfathomable selfishness.”

Fitchett claimed she was not guilty by reason of mental impairment but Curtain called the murder premeditated, citing a letter Fitchett had written before the murders.

No details on the letter were released, and a motive was not given during the trial.

Fitchett’s lawyer, Patrick Tehan, told the court that the mother was depressed and suicidal when she killed her children.

She must serve at least 18 years before she is eligible for parole.

The boys’ father, David Fitchett, said he had hoped his ex-wife would receive two life sentences.

“Thomas and Matthew deserve justice,” David Fitchett told reporters outside court. “Today’s sentence has been extended from the first one. Whilst in my mind it is nowhere near enough … it is better than what it was last time. My boys, I love them and miss them.”

The Daily Mail in the U.K. is breaking rank and publishing the truth about domestic violence:

Four in ten domestic violence victims are men

Four out of ten victims of domestic violence are men, a report claimed yesterday.

But it added that men who complain of being attacked at home are often ignored by police who prefer to believe that a woman is the real victim.

The study comes at a time of complaints that men are treated unfairly by the justice system.

A new set of guidelines for judges on fairness in the courts has been criticised for playing down the likelihood that women attack men and pushing for judges and magistrates to go easier on women offenders…

It wouldn’t do any harm to let Air New Zealand know of this particular development – their contact details are available on their web-site.

I did it myself a week or two back. A few but frequent reminders that their policy is both discriminatory and completely unfounded on fact keeps it fresh in their minds. Eventually they will fold. Don’t expect an intelligent response though – or one at all if emailing.

It would be interesting to find out who is influencing this decision, given that so few other airlines practice it. There is a feminist bogey in there somewhere, either within the company itself, on the board or in those other companies it gets advice from (eg lawyers). The large government share-holding is the most obvious candidate.

Feel free to copy and paste it to them to add your voice to the message.

Dear Madam/Sir,
I look forward to flying with Air New Zealand (instead of other airlines) without being discriminated against for being male – when I receive a response similar to that shown below which this man in the UK recently received from British Airways.

Thank you for your email. I am sorry that you are unhappy with our response. I understand that you feel disappointed with our policy about seating for unaccompanied minors. Please also accept my sincere apologies for the delay in our response.

I can confirm that all feedback we have received relating to the unaccompanied minor seating policy has been carefully reviewed and has led to us reassessing the policy in full. The new policy for seating unaccompanied minors who travel with British Airways does not make any distinction between male and female passengers.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your feedback. Your business is invaluable to us and we appreciate that you have a choice when it comes to booking your flights. Thank you again for getting in touch and for giving me the opportunity to respond to your concerns.
Best regards

Thanks for posting here that reply from BA that was on Anti-Misandry Skeptic. I didn’t appreciate its significance until I saw it just now.

I would like to have included a copy of it in my own communication with Air New Zealand – it would have shown to them that their competitors are actually responding to concerns about this issue, and front-footing it in a way that can be respected.

I’ll be sure to include it next time I let them know this issue hasn’t gone away.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.